Any one wish to discuss Israel vs. Palestine here?

[ConservaDerrps]

When do you assert Islam began?

Islam as a recognizable religion began in the early 600s.
So, you're looking at about 1400 years.
Hundreds, not thousands.

610 AD to be exact, when Mohammed first received his revelations from God as he believed it to be. 622 AD was the beginning of the movement, as Mohammed marched his force of followers from Medina onto Mecca.

So a thousand + a few hundred years then? The point is for a long time.

 

[Billo_Really]

Israeli society does not allow for a decision tree that ends with "Send suicide bomber to blow up a school bus full of kids".

Palestinian society does.

If that was true, then why was it Israel who broke the ceasefire?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Israeli society does not allow for a decision tree that ends with "Send suicide bomber to blow up a school bus full of kids".
Palestinian society does.

If that was true, then why was it Israel who broke the ceasefire?

I don't know what ceasefire you refer to, but if you care to specify I'll bet dollars to dougnuts that I can show it was in response to a paeltinian act of violence.

In any event, your response indicates you miss the point -- when a society sees wanton acts of terroism with innocent civilians as legitimate target, that society has little to blame but itself for its woes.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Islam as a recognizable religion began in the early 600s.
So, you're looking at about 1400 years.
Hundreds, not thousands.

610 AD to be exact, when Mohammed first received his revelations from God as he believed it to be. 622 AD was the beginning of the movement, as Mohammed marched his force of followers from Medina onto Mecca.

So a thousand + a few hundred years then? The point is for a long time.

I kinda chucke at your "is to ignore literally thousands of years of history" comment.

 

[Amelia]

610 AD to be exact, when Mohammed first received his revelations from God as he believed it to be. 622 AD was the beginning of the movement, as Mohammed marched his force of followers from Medina onto Mecca.

So a thousand + a few hundred years then? The point is for a long goddamned time.

I kinda chucke at your "is to ignore literally thousands of years of history" comment.

I gave him the benefit of the doubt. Don't the tensions go back to Abraham, by whatever name the groups are known?

 

[ConservaDerrps]

So a thousand + a few hundred years then? The point is for a long goddamned time.

I kinda chucke at your "is to ignore literally thousands of years of history" comment.

I gave him the benefit of the doubt. Don't the tensions go back to Abraham, by whatever name the groups are known?

Right. That's obviously what I meant, M14 is choosing to hyper-fixate on a verbal blunder rather than the larger point. And considering that they do have history together going back to the Biblical days, I don't think my assessment is really that far off. But whatever, some choose to wallow in the splitting of hairs.

Whatever the length of time, it's obvious that no one outside of those two groups has any business there. It's a viper's nest and could easily wind up causing a really horrible war if we're not careful.

 

[American Horse]

They, the Arab inhabitants and the Jewish inhabitants got along well as peasants at least until 1400 years ago, and since. I too take issue with the phrase "thousands of years" because it implies a hostility that is immutable by its ancient nature, and history disproves that ancient origin.

IMO we shouldn't throw around terms like that when they don't bring clarity, but promote confusion and hopelessness. I imagine that was the issue with an earlier poster also.

 

[georgephillip]

Maybe would could confine the discussion to the most recent incarnation of Israel which began in 1948 when one-third of the citizens of Mandate Palestine imposed a Jewish state by force or arms on the majority of Palestinians?

 

[ConservaDerrps]

They, the Arab inhabitants and the Jewish inhabitants got along well as peasants at least until 1400 years ago, and since. I too take issue with the phrase "thousands of years" because it implies a hostility that is immutable by its ancient nature, and history disproves that ancient origin.

IMO we shouldn't throw around terms like that when they don't bring clarity, but promote confusion and hopelessness. I imagine that was the issue with an earlier poster also.

Edited

It still doesn't mean that the hostilities have existed a long time and the only people with the power to resolve it permanently haven't shown any willingness to do so.

 

[Foxfyre]

Maybe would could confine the discussion to the most recent incarnation of Israel which began in 1948 when one-third of the citizens of Mandate Palestine imposed a Jewish state by force or arms on the majority of Palestinians?

Israel occupies 8000 square miles with a population of just over 6 miliion people--approximately the same number the Nazis murdered--and 20% of that population is Arab. Israel would fit into the State of Florida eight times.

Surely there is enough charity in the world to allow the Israelis such a tiny tract of land for the only homeland the Jews have ever had or will likely ever have?

 

[American Horse]

They, the Arab inhabitants and the Jewish inhabitants got along well as peasants at least until 1400 years ago, and since. I too take issue with the phrase "thousands of years" because it implies a hostility that is immutable by its ancient nature, and history disproves that ancient origin.

IMO we shouldn't throw around terms like that when they don't bring clarity, but promote confusion and hopelessness. I imagine that was the issue with an earlier poster also.

So you'd rather hyper fixate too then. Duly noted.

It still doesn't mean that the hostilities have existed a long time and the only people with the power to resolve it permanently haven't shown any willingness to do so.

I't just a pet peeve of mine, and other's who prefer accuracy and a modicum of precision. And that particular phrase, not that you intended, suggests a hopelessness, and the problems of the region can best be explained by much more current events.

 

[Billo_Really]

They, the Arab inhabitants and the Jewish inhabitants got along well as peasants at least until 1400 years ago, and since. I too take issue with the phrase "thousands of years" because it implies a hostility that is immutable by its ancient nature, and history disproves that ancient origin.

IMO we shouldn't throw around terms like that when they don't bring clarity, but promote confusion and hopelessness. I imagine that was the issue with an earlier poster also.

Try 100 years ago. Until the zionist migration into Palestine, there were no recorded incidents of major violence between the two groups.

 

[ConservaDerrps]

They, the Arab inhabitants and the Jewish inhabitants got along well as peasants at least until 1400 years ago, and since. I too take issue with the phrase "thousands of years" because it implies a hostility that is immutable by its ancient nature, and history disproves that ancient origin.

IMO we shouldn't throw around terms like that when they don't bring clarity, but promote confusion and hopelessness. I imagine that was the issue with an earlier poster also.

So you'd rather hyper fixate too then. Duly noted.

It still doesn't mean that the hostilities have existed a long time and the only people with the power to resolve it permanently haven't shown any willingness to do so.

I't just a pet peeve of mine, and other's who prefer accuracy and a modicum of precision. And that particular phrase, not that you intended, suggests a hopelessness, and the problems of the region can best be explained by much more current events.

Honestly? If you say they were peaceful up to about 1400 years ago, that's not that far away from literally being "thousands" of years ago. Of course, I'd love to see some kind of peace happen before that six hundred years passes. Jesus Christ almighty let's hope so.

 

[Billo_Really]

I don't know what ceasefire you refer to, but if you care to specify I'll bet dollars to dougnuts that I can show it was in response to a paeltinian act of violence.

It was just a couple of years ago that was broken after 4 months by an Israeli commando raid into Gaza in December.

In any event, your response indicates you miss the point -- when a society sees wanton acts of terroism with innocent civilians as legitimate target, that society has little to blame but itself for its woes.

And if that society happens to be an Israeli society...

 

[sealadaigh]

I can find no basis for the dispute between Palestine and Israel involving religion in any regard. The Muslim religion may be a factor in the motives of the Palestinian leadership, but it is their behavor to which I think right thinking people object, and not their religion.

israel insisted as a condition for talks that the palestinians recognise israel's "right to exist". the arab peace initiative did just that and included all twenty two states in the arab league and the PA. israel rejected it in 2002. it rejected it in 2007. whoevern waants to can look up the reasons why. i am to disgusted with the while thing to explain it.

since then, israel refuses to negotiaate until the PA, or whomever the israelis refuse to negotiate with, recognizes istael's "right to exist as a jewish state." that just isn;t going to happen and shouldn't happen.

so religion is involved, and very heavily. why do you think israel refuses to negotiate. because they have their greedy eye on the west bank, an area the jews call judea and samaria.

but hey, it is a done deal. the jewish state wins and jews around the world can celebrate their victory. ll that is left is some political mop up operations. congratulations on your genocide...and they did it the clean way. it was a humane genocide with no terrorism, accomplished only with fountain pens and fighter planes.

i am sure your children, and their children, will be just beaming when they read about it in the history books years from now...with the inevitable comparison of the jewish state with that of the NAZI state.

there is a small chance that this genocide can be prevented, but non-jewosh people are pretty powerless at this point. jews, those who the israeli state listens to and receives support from, have to stand up together and insist upon a peaceful settlement that includes a viable palestine and a fair solution to the refugee problem, and that settlement has to include east al quds/jerusalem and a withdrawl to the green line. that will end the terrorism that you are so worried about...but it isn't going to happen because the Shas party is a kingmaker in the knesset and dictates a balance of power between kadima and likud...and then throw in yisrael beiteinu which is pretty much controlled by the yesha council...well, it was as few as five years ago that i was being told "we don't want the west bank. we only want secure borders and an end to terrorism" now it's "judea and samaria is ours and a rightful part of idrael."

yeah, i am disgusted!!!

Remarks from Benjamin Netanyahu
In a 2001 video, Netanyahu, reportedly unaware he was being recorded, said: "They asked me before the election if I'd honor [the Oslo accords]... I said I would, but [that] I'm going to interpret the accords in such a way that would allow me to put an end to this galloping forward to the '67 borders. How did we do it? Nobody said what defined military zones were. Defined military zones are security zones; as far as I'm concerned, the entire Jordan Valley is a defined military zone. Go argue."[15][16] Netanyahu then explained how he conditioned his signing of the 1997 Hebron agreement on American consent that there be no withdrawals from "specified military locations", and insisted he be allowed to specify which areas constituted a "military location"—such as the whole of the Jordan Valley. "Why is that important? Because from that moment on I stopped the Oslo Accords," Netanyahu affirmed.[17]

Oslo Accords - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[georgephillip]

Maybe would could confine the discussion to the most recent incarnation of Israel which began in 1948 when one-third of the citizens of Mandate Palestine imposed a Jewish state by force or arms on the majority of Palestinians?

Israel occupies 8000 square miles with a population of just over 6 miliion people--approximately the same number the Nazis murdered--and 20% of that population is Arab. Israel would fit into the State of Florida eight times.

Surely there is enough charity in the world to allow the Israelis such a tiny tract of land for the only homeland the Jews have ever had or will likely ever have?

I suspect there would be more charity if the world knew precisely how much land Israel requires.
Your numbers seem more than reasonable to me; however, there are (conservative) factions within Israeli politics who have designs on a much Greater Israel.

"Herut (Hebrew: חרות*, Freedom) was the major right-wing political party in Israel from the 1940s until its formal merger into Likud in 1988, and an adherent of Revisionist Zionism."

Herut's champions have never stopped talking about adding the state of Jordan to their own.
Their hardcore patriots publicly promote a Greater Israel stretching from the Nile to the Euphrates.

 

[sealadaigh]

The dispute isn't so much Israel's right to exist. Along with religious prejudice on both sides, the dispute's firmly rooted in who has a greater claim to the land.

Exactly. To deny that it's not religiously based is to ignore literally thousands of years of history.

i don't think that's entirely true. thousand year old c;aims are pretty rificulous and seems to be a way of avoiding dealing with the issue. discussinh them is pretty much an exercise in futility.

i am not discounting history at all as it pertains to the situation today, but we may want to be a little more modern than when people were off smotin' peeps right and left and when orb pluckin' and molar yankin' were popular pastimes. we wouldn't be in this mess maybe if that notorious third tablet hadn't been smashed in a pique. i think it said "i'll buy a vowel, pat", which would have provided an healthy alternative to turning into a pillar of salt.

maybe a good starting point that includes history would be the mid 1800s, when the brits were running amok in the region, or the 1890s when hertzl came up with a brilliant plan..."hey, this anti-semitism sucks. look at what these dan frogs did to dreyfuss. we need to get outta here and plop oursekves smack dab in the middle of a billion arabe where we will be safe and welcomed." who knows...whatever...george said 1948. all i figure the past has been good for in this dispute is finger pointing.

as for religion's role in disputes of this type, i don't think so. i think it plays a minor part really. you put a bunch of muslims, jews and christians in an auditorium with a big buffet and an open bar and people will probably get along. the fights will break out along the lines of who likes the yankeed and who like the red sox and not whose god is wearing the white uniform and which one is in the road grays.

 

[georgephillip]

"The Arab Peace Initiative (Arabic Language: مبادرة السلام العربي&#1577 is a comprehensive peace initiative first proposed in 2002 at the Beirut Summit of the Arab League by then-Crown Prince, King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, and re-endorsed at the Riyadh Summit in 2007."

One of Israel's most severe critics alleges the Arab Initiative was first put forth 36 years earlier at the UNSC:

"The basic principles have been accepted by virtually the entire world, including the Arab states (who go on to call for full normalization of relations), the Organization of Islamic States (including Iran), and relevant non-state actors (including Hamas).

"A settlement along these lines was first proposed at the U.N. Security Council in January 1976 by the major Arab states.

"Israel refused to attend the session.

"The U.S. vetoed the resolution, and did so again in 1980. The record at the General Assembly since is similar."

A Middle East Peace That Could Happen (But Won't): In Washington-Speak, "Palestinian State" Means "Fried Chicken"

 

[ConservaDerrps]

The dispute isn't so much Israel's right to exist. Along with religious prejudice on both sides, the dispute's firmly rooted in who has a greater claim to the land.

Exactly. To deny that it's not religiously based is to ignore literally thousands of years of history.

i don't think that's entirely true. thousand year old c;aims are pretty rificulous and seems to be a way of avoiding dealing with the issue. discussinh them is pretty much an exercise in futility.

i am not discounting history at all as it pertains to the situation today, but we may want to be a little more modern than when people were off smotin' peeps right and left and when orb pluckin' and molar yankin' were popular pastimes. we wouldn't be in this mess maybe if that notorious third tablet hadn't been smashed in a pique. i think it said "i'll buy a vowel, pat", which would have provided an healthy alternative to turning into a pillar of salt.

maybe a good starting point that includes history would be the mid 1800s, when the brits were running amok in the region, or the 1890s when hertzl came up with a brilliant plan..."hey, this anti-semitism sucks. look at what these dan frogs did to dreyfuss. we need to get outta here and plop oursekves smack dab in the middle of a billion arabe where we will be safe and welcomed." who knows...whatever...george said 1948. all i figure the past has been good for in this dispute is finger pointing.

as for religion's role in disputes of this type, i don't think so. i think it plays a minor part really. you put a bunch of muslims, jews and christians in an auditorium with a big buffet and an open bar and people will probably get along. the fights will break out along the lines of who likes the yankeed and who like the red sox and not whose god is wearing the white uniform and which one is in the road grays.

Allow me to clarify: The religious aspects of this tension are what everything is rooted in. That's to say that the point of genesis for this conflict does in fact come from the differing religious beliefs and their inherent claim over that land. And I still think there are religious fundamentalists on both sides stoking this fire. Otherwise, why would Mosques and Synagogues in the area still try to actively keep Jews and Muslims out of each other's religious buildings?

Now, that doesn't mean that this is a religious conflict per se. There are definitely very secular underpinnings to this. Land control, resource control, etc. Again, this isn't strictly about religion, but when the jumping-off point of your fight with another group is over who believes in the one true God, that kind of shit is hard to completely ignore even hundreds, over a thousand, years ago.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I don't know what ceasefire you refer to, but if you care to specify I'll bet dollars to dougnuts that I can show it was in response to a paeltinian act of violence.

It was just a couple of years ago that was broken after 4 months by an Israeli commando raid into Gaza in December.

You'll have to be more specific, or provide a link to the event. Either way, my prediction stands.

In any event, your response indicates you miss the point -- when a society sees wanton acts of terroism with innocent civilians as legitimate target, that society has little to blame but itself for its woes.

And if that society happens to be an Israeli society...

Really. Cite such an instance or one substatially simiilar.